Can science explore nothingness?

Diverisity is in unity.

Can science and philosophy explore nothingness?

I think you pose an astounding question!

And I do not know the answer...

..except to wonder that given our material form in this world, could this make all of our life experiences little more than a 'discotheque' of ions?

I think I have and can give a preliminary proof. However, I', not going to do this because its quite technical but more importantly I may have stumbled across something which I like the idea of.

I will leave you with a puzzle:

Science has the capability to explore nothingness but it doesn't recognise that the composition of itself is, by reference to itself, and yet at the same only with the introduction of a third, can it be explored.

the only reason of the inability to handel nothingness is the language, its just giving the name nothingness made it some thing which exsists and that is contracdiction. we cannt talk about it, because we cant even use (it) in handling this subject.

what is exsistance any way, are we sure of that?!!!!

Isn't it a fact that many cultures do not even have a written or symbolic recognision of zero. First of all humans need to symbolize what something is and then use that symbol to talk about it and understand it. The first thing we think of when we think of zero or nothingness is blackness, devoid of any 'thing', language again! First a clear definition of nothingness, science needs some 'thing' to explore.

Is there ever really nothingness to start with?
Surely even in the empty vacuum of space there is energy, hidden gamma or microwave or whatever energy there may be, there is always something to explore!

what's existence?

Get someone to punch you in the face hard, right on the nose, then ask me this. I'm not being nasty here; just giving it to you how it is mate.

sorceress, nothingness at the moment is a concept. That means it doesn't have any physical meaning; we cannot sense nothing, and therefore it is a concept and reduces to language, in truth symbols. That does not mean it doesn't exist as reality but it will not until there is an experiment to prove or show that it is, or else satisfy a prediction based upon a theory of nothingness. e.g. you have one apple you take it away and you have no apple, but the apple reduces to parts; it is not destroyed but changes state; once it can be shown that something no longer exists in any state then it can be said we can achieve zero.

quote:

---

what's existence?

Get someone to punch you in the face hard, right on the nose, then ask me this. I'm not being nasty here; just giving it to you how it is mate.

---

absolutely hate this idea...
makes it sound like you've swung from a left wing open ended type question, to a right wing empiricists answer which ends all speculations with a simple 'might-is-right' type of approach. Yuck!

quote:

---

quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
what's existence?

Get someone to punch you in the face hard, right on the nose, then ask me this. I'm not being nasty here; just giving it to you how it is mate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------



absolutely hate this idea...
makes it sound like you've swung from a left wing open ended type question, to a right wing empiricists answer which ends all speculations with a simple 'might-is-right' type of approach. Yuck!

---

Chiron is absolutely right,heyjme1, these responses aren't helping anything...if anything it's making you look like an ass.


but more on topic, When I actually read this thread and when it sunk in, I couldn't even believe how hard it was for me to fathum the number 0 and how we know nothing about the nothingness it embodies.

and I do agree with science and philosophy only being able to explore unity because how in the world can we explore something.... if there's nothing there!!

ahh this is making my mind go crazy right now!! I'll reply some more when I get over the magnitude of this idea. ^___^;;;


excellent question!!

Sometimes, 'stabbing' someone with the truth only acts to serve as a catalyst to them to find a greater 'truth'. Therefore, sometimes, its not the action, but the intention behind the action that is misunderstood. The question is a good one, an intelligent one. Therefore, ask yourself this question; do you think that to the men who have shaped our history; criticism acts as a 'put down' or a further challenge to inspire further?


As a seperate point, if we divide any number by zero we get infinity. If we multiply by zero we get nothing. Do you think, possibly there is a reason that nonthingness has not been found physically. What would happen, do you think, if we did 'discover' it. More to the point, what would happen immediately after if it was shown to be physically?!

When you refer to "nothingness" what do you mean exactly? There isn't a single point in space where "nothing" resides. matter is energy, energy is matter e=mc2 blah blah cosmic radiation..Not to mention Space-Time. Even if there was SOME spot in the universe that had no matter and no energy, it would still be within the realm of the universe itself. Therefore it would still be a point of spacetime itself that has no matter or energy occupying It...

Roninheart. That's a good point. But the problem is still there in that nothingness is still a speculative concept. If there was SOME 'spot' in the universe that occupies 'nothingness' then where is this spot?
Having no matter and no energy it would, if it existed, somehow, occupy a barrier to flow of other energy or matter. By definition it cannot have a spacetime location. For then if it has no physical properties it would act as a barrier to a low of energy-for example heat transfer by a form of brownian motion. It may have charge, and therefore, act in this way, but that is not in conjunction of my idea of nothingness. To me the whole point of nothingness is to not have anything, no thought, no information, no physicality. That is something quite different. Nonetheless you bring up an interesting start point in physics to look for.

"If there was SOME 'spot' in the universe that occupies 'nothingness' then where is this spot?"
-This is my point exactly. There is no such spot. If there were a spot of pure and absolute nothing, it would occupy zero space and zero time (as spacetime is something itself), which is impossible (to exist in our universe anyway).

"Having no matter and no energy it would, if it existed, somehow, occupy a barrier to flow of other energy or matter. By definition it cannot have a spacetime location."
-Woohoo! glad you brought this up ^_^ You are very correct. By definition it CANNOT have a spacetime location. It is impossible, as mentioned.

Anywho, Getting back to the original question brought to the table by Samlyn, "Can science and philosophy explore nothingness?"
Philosophy can surely explore nothingness. We are doing it right now. We are delving into the concept of nothing and finding new thoughts, theories, and insights from our combined knowledge. Fun huh!? ^_^ Science, however cannot be used to explore "nothingness" as nothing is well..nothing and Science is systematic knowledge of the physical, material, world gained through Observation and Experimentation.

We must also remember that Science is EMPIRICAL, which means that the knowledge must be based on Observable phenomena and must be capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions. Science is a reasoned-based analysis of sensation upon our awareness. As such, the scientific method cannot deduce anything about the realm of reality that is beyond what is observable by existing or theoretical means.

Thankyou roninheart that is exactly where I was going with this, the fact that nothing is in essence just space or a point in space, still means it does exist, therefore in some way we should be able to physically and empirically observe it. Isn't that what scientists are actually doing when they are studying both the macro i.e cosmology and the micro i.e quantum mechanics?

"the fact that nothing is in essence just space or a point in space"
- no. Nothing is just that. it is nothing; non-existence. there is radiation in every point of space. In the very least, If you can see stars, you are seeing the waves of light hitting the space you occupy, light is definitely something. there is no such thing as a spot of absolute nothing.
I will reiterate..
In our universe, there is no such thing as absolute nothing. If "nothing" were anything substantial, it would of course then be something, which is absurd. We could also think about the definition OF the word nothing:
1. no thing; not anything; naught: 2. no part, share, or trace: 3. (this may be the important one in this discussion) something that is nonexistent, nonexistence; nothingness. Nothing cannot be space, nor can it be a point in space, as space is something in and of itself. Nothing has no parts, no share (cannot occupy anything) and no trace. science cannot measure it, quantify it, or in essence be used to explain it, period.

When scientists study quantum mechanics, they are studying A fundamental theory of matter and energy that explains facts that previous physical theories were unable to account for, in particular the fact that energy is absorbed and released in small, discrete quantities (quanta), and that all matter displays both wavelike and particlelike properties, especially when viewed at atomic and subatomic scales. Quantum mechanics suggests that the behavior of matter and energy is inherently probabilistic. Even though we may not be able to see these things with the naked eye, we can with the use of electron microscopes and by measuring the amount of energy released in various experiments. This is the study of the extremely small, not the non existent.